Termination of Support

[needsans]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I am divorced and my boyfriend wants me to move in with him. My divorce agreement states: The liability of the Husband to continue the payments as set forth in subparagraph shall cease if the Wife habitually resides with an unrelated male to whom she is not legally married and holds herself out as his wife as set for in section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law ( NY) etc.
I asked my own lawyer and she said "If truly just sharing house and not in financial partnership or sexual relationship it should not be a problem". This is confusing because if I am sharing a house and not paying rent, wouldn't it be assumed that I was being supported? So how do you NOT have a financial relationship? Forget the sexual part who can prove that? I want to know if this is a gray area and if I could live with him. Thank you

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I am divorced and my boyfriend wants me to move in with him. My divorce agreement states: The liability of the Husband to continue the payments as set forth in subparagraph shall cease if the Wife habitually resides with an unrelated male to whom she is not legally married and holds herself out as his wife as set for in section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law ( NY) etc.
I asked my own lawyer and she said "If truly just sharing house and not in financial partnership or sexual relationship it should not be a problem". This is confusing because if I am sharing a house and not paying rent, wouldn't it be assumed that I was being supported? So how do you NOT have a financial relationship? Forget the sexual part who can prove that? I want to know if this is a gray area and if I could live with him. Thank you

Move in with boyfriend and lose alimony.

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I am divorced and my boyfriend wants me to move in with him. My divorce agreement states: The liability of the Husband to continue the payments as set forth in subparagraph shall cease if the Wife habitually resides with an unrelated male to whom she is not legally married and holds herself out as his wife as set for in section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law ( NY) etc.
I asked my own lawyer and she said "If truly just sharing house and not in financial partnership or sexual relationship it should not be a problem". This is confusing because if I am sharing a house and not paying rent, wouldn't it be assumed that I was being supported? So how do you NOT have a financial relationship? Forget the sexual part who can prove that? I want to know if this is a gray area and if I could live with him. Thank you

You are being supported if you are living without working and not paying rent.

 

[ecmst12]

I think living with your boyfriend will end your alimony. It SHOULD, according to your agreement. Even if you are sharing expenses, you are still supporting each other. You don't need to be supported by 2 men at once, do you?

 

[Bali Hai]

I think living with your boyfriend will end your alimony.

Not correct in NY.

It SHOULD, according to your agreement.

Your opinion is incorrect.

Even if you are sharing expenses, you are still supporting each other. You don't need to be supported by 2 men at once, do you?

Irrelevent.

Is she "holding herself out as the boyfriends wife"? There are many loopholes to keep men paying alimony in New York State.

 

[sandyclaus]

I found relevant information that should apply here. The key phrase here "holding herself out as his wife" seems to be the sticking point.

Most co-habitation clauses are spelled out as to define exactly what constitutes co-habitation and would qualify to end the maintenance payments. In OP's agreement, as with many maintenance agreements, it doesn't specifically state co-habitation, nor define it.

The case to research is Graev v. Graev. Here is a page that discusses the case and how it applies, and what would constitute good reason to terminate the maintenance payments: http://www.jdbar.net/?p=32

It appears the key factor here is not the co-habitation itself, or even maintaining a sexual relationship. The Supreme Court found in favor of Mrs. Graevs, holding that “an essential element of cohabitation is a shared residence with shared household expenses". If the two do not habitually share household expenses, but instead maintain their own separate expenses, then it's not considered co-habitation and is not a violation of the divorce agreement regarding the payment of maintenance.

 

[tuffbrk]

It appears the key factor here is not the co-habitation itself, or even maintaining a sexual relationship. The Supreme Court found in favor of Mrs. Graevs, holding that “an essential element of cohabitation is a shared residence with shared household expenses". If the two do not habitually share household expenses, but instead maintain their own separate expenses, then it's not considered co-habitation and is not a violation of the divorce agreement regarding the payment of maintenance.

That's correct. A party paying alimony has to prove that the recipient is no longer in need of the money to maintain their previous marital standard of living. The laws in most states do have provisions that if the payor is not sustaining the previous marital standard that a reduction may be appropriate. I have to say that from what I've read on a number of alimony reform sites, the courts hold the payor to a higher standard simply because historically those that are required to pay will go to all lengths to not pay. This makes it harder for those that truly are not in the same position to pay.

As it stands for proving that your ex no longer requires your financial support - we all know how difficult it is to get your hands on financial records and information. Thus, many states now have rulings that if you prove that the party is living with another person, that it falls to the party receiving alimony to prove that they still need it. Of course, there are so many ways to slant the truth - receipts from the person that they live with indicating that they receive rent monies when the cash is returned to the person, credit cards that are not reported in the financial disclosure, etc. You can hire forensic accountants if you can afford it. You can hire PIs if you can afford it. By the time you pay the alimony, though, you're luck to be able to afford a tune up of your car never mind expert witnesses!

There have been Unpublished decisions in NJ (they post them on their Judiciary site) that would literally blow your mind. Cases where financial information was provided by dumpster diving PIs that show amounts being charged and paid off in 30-60 days that are greater than the annual salary of the alimony recipient, ex spouse's going on vacations multiple times a year, ex spouse's purchasing property with their "landlords," children's college loans being paid in cash by an ex spouse within the same quarter that a student loan was taken, etc. in which the NJ courts ruled AGAINST the party bringing forth the information. In one case, the ex simply said that she no longer had a romantic relationship and so the courts ruled against the payor. It is amazing the standards to which the payor is held in order to make their case. As a payor myself, it seems that the only thing that I CAN do to help myself at some point in the future is to continue my quest with an alimony reform group to get reforms-especially of the definition of co habitation in NJ - in place.

 

[Bali Hai]

That's correct. A party paying alimony has to prove that the recipient is no longer in need of the money to maintain their previous marital standard of living. The laws in most states do have provisions that if the payor is not sustaining the previous marital standard that a reduction may be appropriate. I have to say that from what I've read on a number of alimony reform sites, the courts hold the payor to a higher standard simply because historically those that are required to pay will go to all lengths to not pay. This makes it harder for those that truly are not in the same position to pay.

As it stands for proving that your ex no longer requires your financial support - we all know how difficult it is to get your hands on financial records and information. Thus, many states now have rulings that if you prove that the party is living with another person, that it falls to the party receiving alimony to prove that they still need it. Of course, there are so many ways to slant the truth - receipts from the person that they live with indicating that they receive rent monies when the cash is returned to the person, credit cards that are not reported in the financial disclosure, etc. You can hire forensic accountants if you can afford it. You can hire PIs if you can afford it. By the time you pay the alimony, though, you're luck to be able to afford a tune up of your car never mind expert witnesses!

There have been Unpublished decisions in NJ (they post them on their Judiciary site) that would literally blow your mind. Cases where financial information was provided by dumpster diving PIs that show amounts being charged and paid off in 30-60 days that are greater than the annual salary of the alimony recipient, ex spouse's going on vacations multiple times a year, ex spouse's purchasing property with their "landlords," children's college loans being paid in cash by an ex spouse within the same quarter that a student loan was taken, etc. in which the NJ courts ruled AGAINST the party bringing forth the information. In one case, the ex simply said that she no longer had a romantic relationship and so the courts ruled against the payor. It is amazing the standards to which the payor is held in order to make their case. As a payor myself, it seems that the only thing that I CAN do to help myself at some point in the future is to continue my quest with an alimony reform group to get reforms-especially of the definition of co habitation in NJ - in place.

My ex has lived with her "landlord" subsequent to our divorce. They go out to dinner together, go on vacations together and do eveything you would expect a married couple to do. She is not holding herself out as the "landlord's" wife per NYS DRL 248. You know the rest of the story.

 

[Ohiogal]

So OP are you going to lie about having sex with your boyfriend when asked in court and deny that you are living together?

 

[tuffbrk]

I so hear ya Bali.

This is why I drink.

In one of the NJ cases, they ruled against the payor because even though he proved co-habitation, they said that NJ does not recognize common law marriage. to say that I was lost reading that decision is putting it mildly. Pure insanity.